There are lots of great wallpapers on this site which are ruined by having the KDE/Linux/whatever logo plastered on them. I can see that I am running KDE I don't need a logo telling me.

KDE-look.org KDE! there are so many wallpaper-sites on the web. on a kde-related site I only want to see kde-stuff. just use another site if you don't want to see kde. ;)

then you should at the very least post the copyright holder and the site of origin in the description, and preferably the photographer's and model's names as well. not to mention the fact that distributing the work without the copyright holders concent is illegal, and www.kde-look.org could be held responsible. if you want to break the law, perhaps you should do it directly to the other person, so that other people arent liable, or simply reply to the person's post with a url to the place you originally got the images (assuming they are free for download). this isnt about artistic purity, its about legality, and comon courtesy. ps, i am not stating my issue on the copyright laws, im just saying what they are.

ok, the above was by me, but there were some strange server issues or something and i must have gotten logged out (although, it shouldnt have let me post then. hrm, looks like this is a bug in their code...)

An old Indian saying..."Be wary of the white man who stares at the sky, ... he's trying to figure out how to put a fence around it and sell it to someone." God owns the world and all that is in it. what if we had to pay royalities to someone for use of the english lang., or the color blue. Open source was the beginning of Linux and now it seems to be run by the likes of Lindows OS and ppl hung up on copyright crap.

umm, sorry, but how the hell is that relevant to this at all? this isnt like somebody is copyrighting the ocean, or the sky, or even an image of one of them. the problem with people speaking in euphamisms is that they often have no clue what they are saying, but think they come out sounding smarter because of that. since you never bothered to tie your post in to the conversation at hand, i am going to have to interpret what you said for you, and hope that its what you meant. if not, dont blame me, but try to actually say something in your next post... ok, im assuming you are saying that a person should not be able to own the copyright on what is merely a representation of something already created. however, there are several points where this argument falls through with either these photographs specifically, or with photography in general. first, and most general, is the composition of the image. the photographer didnt simply point the camera in some random direction and hope he/she got something good out of it. any halfway decent shot is carefully planned out, with light, shadow, and the general composition of the scene taken into consideration. this in and of itself is a reason enough to at least give the photographer credit. now, lets move on to issues more relevant to this image. the photographer and model arent the only people responsible for the image. there is also the clothing designer, the textile designer, the makeup artist, anybody taking care of lighting, the person developing the film (assuming its not the photographer themselves) and (lest we not forget) the person who airbrushed (digitally or not) all the blemishes out of the photo before the image was considered acceptable for general consumption. so, to say that only some divine creator is responsible for the image, is bullshit, because it ignores many hours of hard work put into each of these photographs. second interpretation: you are merely saying that copyright law is bullshit, and should be done away with. well, as i said in my previous post, i am not saying this to express my views on copyright law, im simply saying that they exist, and a great site could potentially be shut down at a copyright holders whim and pocket book (not that this is particularly likely, but its better to be safe than sorry). simply disagreeing with the law doesnt give you the right to break it. i could disagree with the law preventing me from shooting you, but if i went ahead and did it that wouldnt keep me out of jail (or worse, if were still living in texas...) as a somewhat artist, i personally do not have any problem with people distributing my works, since i do not do them for profit, but rather for my own enjoyment, and to communicate with the audience. however, i do realise that all authors deserve the right to make that decision on their own, and it is not up to the consumer or the record companies to do it for them (unfortunately, the record companies seem to have the decision making power now, but a lot of people think the consumer should have the power, when really neither person should get to decide). also, i would like to say that i was and still am really only asking for the poster to give at the very least credit to the copyright holder and photographer, not necessarily to remove the image from the page (although, i see that my original post could have been seen like that, i probably should have considered my wording more)

You can't educate someone beyond their own level of understanding. First of all your arguement makes no sense because you lack the understanding and common sense that says creating a language like english also took a lot of work and many different ppl working on it and improving it yet we don't pay royalities for it like you are suggesting we do with music or pictures which don't contribute nearly as much to society as does language. And next... God created the universe and all that is in them, including the lighting which you deem so important. so without the ability to see, hear, move, speak or the materials in which these pictures were made and the materials the clothes, makeup, lighting, etc... All of which God made! Which is a much bigger better thing than the use of the things He made which would not be possible without them. I'm assuming you're from europe since you spelled realize "realise" So again I give you advice. It is better to keep ones mouth closed and only appear ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt.

ok, you are clearly missing my point entirely. i am going to use your example of the english language, since the rest of your arguments are based on an assumtion that there is a god, which is another debate entirely, and should definately not be taken as a given. you seem to think that when an author copyrights a book, he (or she) is copyrighting the entire english language. this is simply not true. what is being copyrighted is the specific order of words and letters that they use to represent a series of thoughts or ideas. the english language is a tool, or material, that the author is using to generate a work of art. if the language was the art itself, then everybody would have the same writing skill. just like a sculpter makes something more out of a block of stone, or a painter creates something more than a bucket of paint and a piece of canvas, so to does the author create a work of art out of the language, but the language is not the art itself. this argument follows through to photography. yes, the photographer doesnt actually create his subjects, but what he does is arange the various materials (light, shadow, subjects, background, etc) into something that we find pleasing to the eye. this takes a fair amount of talent, and, for most people, a fair amount of training as well. and this is just up to the point where the photographer takes the picture. if you know anything about photography, you would know that professional photographers dont just go down to the one hour photo lab to get their film processed. they often process their film themselves, usually creating many prints from the same negative, adjusting the process to create subtle interplays between the light and shadow, adjusting the contrast, brightness, grainyness, etc to change the mood of the image. and then, in the case of fashion photography, the print is taken to the magazine, where it is digitally scanned in, and the model's blemishes are removed, because any irregularity is frowned upon in our society (another argument all of its own). fi you dont believe me, there are several books of (to give an example) ansel adams' photography that show several different prints of the same photograph, each one being subtley, or not subtley, different. if you compare the photos taken at junior's birthday party (to give an example) with something a serious photographer would do, youll notice that the birthday pictures are (almost always, but not always) bland. they convey no emotion and only record who did what. but a good photographer can capture an emotion, not just from a human subject, but from inanimate objects, man made or not.

I can agree that it takes a great deal of "practice" to do anything very good and in some cases talent. Where we part ways is after the magazine is sold and the photographer and his team of brush artist and let's not forget the model and her agent are paid that's it for me the magazine then becomes public to think otherwise would be like saying the pictures and video of the world trade center attack are still private and the world has to pay royalties everytime the pictures are shown. Forever I guess is what you are advocating. I guess you think we should still pay royalties to the photographers that took pictures of WWII and since Hitler was in so of the pictures and video we should pay to any of his heirs. Wait we can't forget the inventer of the camera and Edison for his use of artifical light and Franklin for the electricity that was used, Kodak for their paper, designers for their clothing, Maybelline for their makeup, etc...

ok, first, i guess the thread went too deep, cause it wouldnt let me reply directly to your post. second, you still dont seem to be presenting any views on the subject at hand, but instead have resorted to the childish method of exaggerating what i said and putting words in my mouth (when you even managed to put together a coherent sentence). is there some point in time when a work suddenly becomes authorless? after so many years, did history suddenly change, and shakespeare no longer wrote any of his plays, but they simply were created out of thin air? this makes no sense. when something has happened, it has happened. it doesnt "un-happen" sometime in the future. (yes, i made that word up, thats why i put it in quotation marks). Orwel would be proud of you. as for your 9-11 reference, i find it very sad, and rather sick, that you are exploiting such a tragic loss of life to tangentally make an argument against copyright law. to answer your question, yes, i do believe if one of the people who took the photographs does not want people to see them, then that is his right. he owns them, and thus he gets to decide who gets to see them. just like i get to decide who sees the photographs i took. the subject of the photograph, or work of art, is irrelevant, and i think you are simply desperately trying to win the readers of these posts to your side of the argument by attempting to force me to belittle the tragedy. well, all i have to say is, there is probably nobody reading this but you and i, since the post is no longer on the front page...

This is the big problem of kde-look : It became the place to put all and nothing from bootsplash to XP wallpapers :( I think we the arrival of http://www.themedepot.org/ , the bootsplash themes and the non-Kde wallpapers need to go there :( The KDE themes can stay here and perhaps be mirrored in themedepot ?

Do you use KDE? Do you use wallpaper on your KDE desktop? I am pretty sure if you are here then the answer is yes. Have you by chance noticed the nice menu on the left of the kde-look wepage? It allws you to select what catagory you want to look at, whether it be wallpaper/screenshots/Themes etc.. People like you are so annoying to me always whining about how thiongs should be changed to suit your desires. How about living in the real world for awhile. We all use this website and I am willing to bet that most of us enjoy looking at a good wallpaper now and then, if you don't like it the dont click on the darn link. It is too easy to filter out what you don't want to see that I see no reason for the complaints.

did you really read his posting?

well, maybe YOU'RE kidding, but i wouldn't be! let's not forget: there ARE people out there with linux/kde tattoos. you think i'm joking, don't you? besides, i think it would address some of the complaints lower down. that is: that some sort of spoof-cheescake would actually be pretty funny. you know what really turns me on? chicks with big fat kde tattoos. oh yeah... ;-)